Chad Smith wrote:
On 3/8/06, John W. Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This simply isn't true. The fact that a good many older programs, of the
same vintage as Windows 2 or Windows 3, can work on MacOS 9 does not
mean that a far more recent program can. OOo requires an operating
system with approximately the same facilities as Unix, and MacOS 9 is
not such a system. OS/2, like MacOS X, is.
Seriously, are you daft?
"Of the same vintage of Windows 2 or 3?" I said Microsoft Office 2001 -
Two-Thousand-One. That's the vintage of Windows XP - not Windows 2 or 3.
The MacOS Classic version is not a port of the Windows version, but code
written for MacOS Classic from the beginning.
You have no concept of what Macintosh OS 9 is or anything - do you?
Yes I do.
Windows XP is not Unix based - and OOo runs on it.
I didn't say it was. I said it has approximately the same facilities as
Unix, which it does, and which MacOS 9 does not.
In fact, Mac OS X - which *is* UNIX based, requires more work
than Windows, which is not.
Because of Cocoa and its dependence on Objective C.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I know /exactly/ what I am talking about. This whole business has been
discussed over and over again.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
